• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  • Total voters
    40
nerv14 said:
But if someone has an assult rifle that also can put me at risk.
Click to expand...

Welcome to freedom. Lost of things put you at risk. Guns, cars, alcohol, etc. But people are allowed access to them because we are free. Free isn't safe, it never was safe and never will be safe. But it's better than the alternative.

nerv14 said:
Hell, someone else driving next to me on the road puts me at risk.
Click to expand...

Sure as hell does, what do you want me to do about it?

nerv14 said:
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't have to do with protecting us in that way.
Click to expand...

Sure doesn't. The Constitution is the contract between We the People and the government which we created. It allows the government certain powers and duties. That not granted to the government in the Constitution was not given to the government. The main purpose of the government isn't to keep you all nice and cuddly safe, but rather the guarantee of our rights and liberties.

nerv14 said:
And where are you not allowed to put someone at risk? and how is that infringing on their rights?
Click to expand...

I'm not putting anyone at risk, what are you talking about? My guns threaten no one. Had I assault rifles, they wouldn't be threatening anyone either.

nerv14 said:
My whole point is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely literally.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not the Bible, of course it was meant to be taken literally. It's a list of powers granted to the government, WTF is the point if its not literal?

nerv14 said:
In effect, if you take everything COMPLETELY literally then most things have no value in real life.
Click to expand...

Wait...what?

nerv14 said:
we are the ones that have to judge that.
Click to expand...

WTF drugs are you on, and share!

nerv14 said:
The Bill of Rights says that no laws can be used to subvert the amendments on the Bill of Rights anyway.

"Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Click to expand...

Of course, the point of Amendment 9, however, is to state that the People have retained more than the rights they enumerated in the Constitution and that the government is likewise forbidden from infringing upon those not listed.
 
Ikari said:
Welcome to freedom. Lost of things put you at risk. Guns, cars, alcohol, etc. But people are allowed access to them because we are free. Free isn't safe, it never was safe and never will be safe. But it's better than the alternative.



Sure as hell does, what do you want me to do about it?



Sure doesn't. The Constitution is the contract between We the People and the government which we created. It allows the government certain powers and duties. That not granted to the government in the Constitution was not given to the government. The main purpose of the government isn't to keep you all nice and cuddly safe, but rather the guarantee of our rights and liberties.



I'm not putting anyone at risk, what are you talking about? My guns threaten no one. Had I assault rifles, they wouldn't be threatening anyone either.



The Constitution is not the Bible, of course it was meant to be taken literally. It's a list of powers granted to the government, WTF is the point if its not literal?



Wait...what?



WTF drugs are you on, and share!



Of course, the point of Amendment 9, however, is to state that the People have retained more than the rights they enumerated in the Constitution and that the government is likewise forbidden from infringing upon those not listed.
Click to expand...


exactly... we aren't gauranteed safety. (see bolded text from you) But then why can't i scream fire in a crowded building? It seems like a violation of my rights from a literal interepretation of the first amendment.

However, it doesn't violate it because the amendments can't be taken literally, which is why we can ban assult weapons. the second amendment can't be literal if the first amendment isn't.

im happy that this confusion is settled. :D
 
Dav said:
No, and I will be completely honest here, but I don't know much about guns.
Click to expand...
So... how did you come up with your position that some 'assault weapons' should be banned, and others, not?
 
Dav said:
It's not non-sequitor. The fact that we can all agree on not letting ordinary citizens own nuclear weapons- we can all agree on that, right?- proves beyond doubt that there is a certain level of power beyond which marketable weapons should not legally go. The only question remaining is where that level is.
Click to expand...
Its somewhere past the point of "all firearms".
That is, whever the boundary is, all firearms certainly fall under the definition of 'arms'.
 
nerv14 said:
But if someone has an assult rifle that also can put me at risk.
Click to expand...
Simple posession of an assault rifle (note that the terms assault rifle and 'assault weapon' are NOT interchangeable) puts NO ONE at risk.
 
I wonder why we havent heard from WillRockwell on this issue...
 
Goobieman said:
Simple posession of an assault rifle (note that the terms assault rifle and 'assault weapon' are NOT interchangeable) puts NO ONE at risk.
Click to expand...

I don't know the specific differences between an assult rifle and an assault weapon. Maybe an assult rifle doesn't put people at risk, you agree ethat assult weapons do, and that is what my position is.
 
nerv14 said:
I don't know the specific differences between an assult rifle and an assault weapon. Maybe an assult rifle doesn't put people at risk, you agree ethat assult weapons do, and that is what my position is.
Click to expand...
No... simple posession of an assault rifle (or 'assault weapon') puts no one at risk. Having a firearm of any kind doesnt endanger anyone, just as Having the ability to yell fire in a theater doesnt endanger anyone.

Now, DOING something with it is another story.
 
All anti-Second Amendment arguments are, by their very nature, preposterous and nonsensical.
 
Goobieman said:
No... simple posession of an assault rifle (or 'assault weapon') puts no one at risk. Having a firearm of any kind doesnt endanger anyone, just as Having the ability to yell fire in a theater doesnt endanger anyone.

Now, DOING something with it is another story.
Click to expand...

Yes, it doesn't immedietly put other people at risk, but I am trying to ballance freedom and making it harder for one person to kill many other people at once. But im sure you can see the conneection between people having guns and them using them :p

and about yelling fire in a crowded building... that is illegal and it doesn't DIRECTLY cause people harm. Thank you, that was exactly my point.




just to say, i support people to have most of the guns that they want. if someone wants any rifle they can probally have it. I am not making the arguement that all guns should be outlawed because they can be used to kill other people, im just drawing a line somewhere.
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
Yes, it doesn't immedietly put other people at risk...
Click to expand...
So, what's the argument for banning simple posession?

But im sure you can see the conneection between people having guns and them using them
Click to expand...
>99.99% of guns are not used to kill anyone... so, no, I cannot.

...yelling fire in a crowded building... that is illegal and it doesn't DIRECTLY cause people harm.
Click to expand...
It DOES directly put people at risk, which is why it is illegal,
What do you suppose the gun-related equivelant to yelling fire in a theater might be?
 
nerv14 said:
and about yelling fire in a crowded building... that is illegal and it doesn't DIRECTLY cause people harm. Thank you, that was exactly my point.
Click to expand...
Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, does, and did do harm to others, which is why it is unprotected speach, the utterance, an action, creates a clear and present danger. Owning an assault rifle in itself is not an intent to harm, and like Gobieman stated, the intent to harm would be firing the rifle, that is the actionn that could be considered a clear and present danger, the behavior of illicit use of the weapon can be banned constitutionally, NOT the action of owning it.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
What do you suppose the gun-related equivelant to yelling fire in a theater might be?
Click to expand...

...I don't

LaMidRighter said:
Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, does, and did do harm to others, which is why it is unprotected speach, the utterance, an action, creates a clear and present danger. Owning an assault rifle in itself is not an intent to harm, and like Gobieman stated, the intent to harm would be firing the rifle, that is the actionn that could be considered a clear and present danger, the behavior of illicit use of the weapon can be banned constitutionally, NOT the action of owning it.
Click to expand...

no, no, no you don't understand the context of what i said about yelling fire in a crowded building.

to clarify.

laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded building is against the first amendmemt. Therefore, the amendments can't be taken literally for that law to be Constitutional.

that means that the second amendment also can't be taken completely literally.
and once again... I am ballancing safety and civil liberties, i support all other types of gun ownership.
Click to expand...
 
nerv14 said:
to clarify.
laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded building is against the first amendmemt. Therefore, the amendments can't be taken literally for that law to be Constitutional.
Click to expand...
Sure it can. Not all speech is "free speech".
"Fighting words", libel, slander -- all examples of things that are not free speech.

that means that the second amendment also can't be taken completely literally.
Click to expand...
Sure it can.
Not all weapons are 'arms'.
Not everyone is among 'the people'.
Not every limitation is an 'infringement'.

and once again... I am ballancing safety and civil liberties, i support all other types of gun ownership.
Click to expand...
You havn't shown that simple posession of an 'assault weapon' is a danger to public safety.
 
nerv14;1058004277 no said:
laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded building is against the first amendmemt. Therefore, the amendments can't be taken literally for that law to be Constitutional.

that means that the second amendment also can't be taken completely literally.[/B]
and once again... I am ballancing safety and civil liberties, i support all other types of gun ownership.
Click to expand...
No, No, No, I do understand, I had to take classes on just these issues when I went to college, and this is exactly how the rights break down. You have the right to free speach as long as it is protected. Prurient, injurious, and obscene language is not protected, yet the words and sometimes images that could form those unprotected forms of expression are, the same courtesy is for some reason not extended to the second amendment by anti-gun, uninformed politicians. An assault rifle shares many of the same charecteristics of common hunting rifles, yet it has a different look due to differing operating needs, If I wanted to commit an obscenity using the f-word then that would be intent, similarly if I used a normally innocuous word such as fire in a crowd, my intention would be to create chaos, this could result in death which speaks to the intent of the speaker. Owning an "assualt weapon" also known to people who know what they are talking about as a modified rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc. for target shooting, competitive target shooting, and self-defense harms no one.
 
nerv14 said:
I don't know the specific differences between an assult rifle and an assault weapon. Maybe an assult rifle doesn't put people at risk, you agree ethat assult weapons do, and that is what my position is.
Click to expand...

All weapons, by the way you're using the term, "put people at risk".

Cars put people at risk, shall we ban cars?

Knives put people at risk, shall we ban Knives?

Razors put people at risk, shall we ban razors?

Hammers put people at risk, shall we ban hammers?

Someone owning an assult weapon does not infringe on anyones rights. If said person then brandishes or fires an assult weapon at someone else, then that argument can be made.

Likewise

Saying "Fire" does not infringe upon anyones rights. However, say "Fire" in the middle of a large crowd in a confined space with limited exits and then an argument can be made.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They are going to take it, because they are better armed than you are. Thats why the founders did not want the government heavily armed.
Click to expand...

And that is why the Founders wanted the citizens to be armed.

Don't forget that part.

It's important.
 
Zyphlin said:
Saying "Fire" does not infringe upon anyones rights. However, say "Fire" in the middle of a large crowd in a confined space with limited exits and then an argument can be made.
Click to expand...
Laws against discharging a firearm into the air within city limits do not infringe on the right to arms, as such an act is a direct danger to others.
THAT is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater.
 
Goobieman said:
Laws against discharging a firearm into the air within city limits do not infringe on the right to arms, as such an act is a direct danger to others.
THAT is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think we made the same point essentially, mine was just a little longer winded.
 
nerv14 said:
But if someone has an assult rifle that also can put me at risk.
Click to expand...

Here's a concept.

It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the second Amendment allows all those people to tote guns and they might get the wrong idea.

No.

Wait.

It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the authorities need a means to charge the irresponsible ass that caused all the harm. If it's not against the law, they can't charge him.

You will note, and note very carefully, the law doesn't forbid anyone to own a mouth, it only punishes the misuse of that mouth.

Equally important, the law should permit unlimited ownership of guns (the highest law, the Constitution, does), but punishes improper use of them.

nerv14 said:
My whole point is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely literally.
Click to expand...

Well, that's wrong.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Here's a concept.

It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the second Amendment allows all those people to tote guns and they might get the wrong idea.

No.

Wait.

It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the authorities need a means to charge the irresponsible ass that caused all the harm. If it's not against the law, they can't charge him.

You will note, and note very carefully, the law doesn't forbid anyone to own a mouth, it only punishes the misuse of that mouth.

Equally important, the law should permit unlimited ownership of guns (the highest law, the Constitution, does), but punishes improper use of them.



Well, that's wrong.
Click to expand...

huh?

What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.

I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.


If people want, they can argue that even though the second amendment (or any other amendment) can't be taken literally, but that assault weapons should still be legal. but you guys are fighting on my home turf :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom